Australian Press Council

[TV.Cynic]

Australian Press Council appoints additional Public and Independent Journalist Council Members and Public Adjudication Panel Members

The Australian Press Council (APC) is very pleased to announce the appointments of Sally Basser and Aram Hosie as Public Members, and Ian Macintosh and Meggie Palmer as Independent Journalist Council Members. Four new Public Adjudication Panel Members have also been appointed — Dr Suzanne Martin, Sarah Talbert, Vicki Williams and Jacquilene Lefevre.

Public and Independent Journalist Council Members have an important leadership and governance role in the operations of the APC. Adjudication Panel Members, who are independent of publishers, have an important role in determining whether published material, the subject of a complaint, has breached the APC’s Standards of Practice, with which APC member publishers agree to comply.

“The impressive qualifications, skills, and depth of experience of those whose appointments have been announced today will be of invaluable benefit to the Australian Press Council and to the broader community. In addition, the new appointees will make the Council even more broadly reflective of the Australian community and its diverse range of values and experiences,” said APC Chair, Neville Stevens, AO. “Along with the impressive group of new Members appointed in August, today’s announcement demonstrates the APC’s commitment to strengthen its ability to respond effectively to the challenges and opportunities presented by today’s media environment.”

New Public Council Members:

Sally Basser is a consultant and board director with a deep interest in the creative industries, arts, social welfare, health, disability and not-for-profit sectors. Prior to 2018 Sally enjoyed a successful career as a senior Commonwealth public servant, holding senior executive positions in the Social Policy Division of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. She was head of the Office for the Arts from 2007 to 2017. This is underpinned by over 25 years’ experience in the public and not-for-profit sectors across a range of specialties including human services, human resource management and as a social worker in settings including child and family services and community health. Currently, Sally works as a consultant with a particular focus on working with NFP boards and CEOs on leadership, board effectiveness, governance, organisational change and strategic planning. She currently serves on the boards of the Art Gallery of Ballarat, Bell Shakespeare Company, the Australian National Academy of Music and the Australian Youth Orchestra.

Aram Hosie is the Executive Director, Strategy and Public Affairs, at Save the Children Australia. A highly experienced public policy and advocacy leader, Aram has over 15 years’ experience working on health and human rights law and policy issues in both the government and non-government sectors. He has previously held executive positions with a range of organisations including the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission; community health provider cohealth; and youth mental health service ReachOut.com. Aram has also had experience providing high level advice to Ministers and senior government, including through his prior roles as a member of the Victorian Government’s LGBTIQ+ Taskforce, and senior advisor in the West Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet and Department of Indigenous Affairs. Aram currently serves on the board of Your Community Health.

New Independent Journalist Council Members:

Ian Macintosh is a veteran international journalist and editorial manager. He held positions including Senior Vice President of CNN International (Asia Pacific), based in Hong Kong, and as senior consultant to CNN International in various regions. He also spent three years as a Vice President of CNN’s commercial arm, Turner International. Previously Ian was a radio and television journalist, news editor, and foreign correspondent with the ABC over 27 years, his overseas postings including Port Moresby, Singapore, Jakarta, Tokyo, New York and London. After 35 years in broadcast journalism, Ian founded and managed an international media consultancy. He is a passionate supporter of high standards and ethical practices in journalism, regardless of platform, technology and commercial influences.

Meggie Palmer is an award-winning journalist and producer with more than 15 years’ global reporting experience. She is the founder and CEO of PepTalkHer, a technology company focused on closing the gender gap. Meggie worked globally covering stories in Italy, Syria and ZImbabwe for networks including the BBC, CNBC, SBS Dateline and the Discovery Channel. Her films have won New York Festival TV & Film awards, UN Media awards, a Walkley award and a Logie nomination. Most recently she ran branded content for the Financial Times in New York City. Meggie has been a contributing author with Vogue and an Adjunct Lecturer at Columbia University. She regularly speaks at events globally on gender equality. Based in the USA for the past five years, Meggie maintains strong ties to Australia in a professional and personal capacity. She’s a passionate angel investor and board member.

New Public Adjudication Panel Members:

Dr Suzanne Martin is a former APC Public Council Member who served a full term of nine years with the APC. Suzanne is a veterinary surgeon and an active member of her rural community in northern Tasmania. She has worked as a private practitioner in New Zealand and Scotland, as well as in Tasmania, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.

Sarah Talbert is a Public Defender appointed by the NSW Attorney General to the Public Defenders Chambers. Sarah was previously a Crown Prosecutor with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a barrister in private practice and a sessional academic at the Australian Catholic University.

Vicki Williams is the Chief Operating Officer of the University of Canberra. She is a chartered accountant and former Director - Advisory at PwC. Vicki has held a number of senior leadership positions including Chief Financial Advisor at Airservices Australia and CFO at Calvary Health Care ACT and the Housing Industry Association.

Jacqui Lefevre was a governing member of .au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA), has served on the Defence Reserves Support Council (VIC), and is an appointed industry representative on auDA’s nomination committee. She is the founder and former CEO of Domain Registration Services, an auDA accredited domain name registrar and provider of web hosting solutions.

The APC is responsible for promoting freedom of speech through responsible and independent journalism and adherence to high journalistic and editorial standards. Members include the majority of Australia’s major newspapers, magazines and online publishers.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / The Courier Mail

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Courier Mail on 24 May 2021, headed “Close loophole that costs innocent lives” in print and headed “Qld DV crisis: Courts powerless to restrain offenders due to loophole” online.

The article is an opinion piece in which the columnist reported that the laws in Queensland are “providing little protection to victims.” The article said, “Queensland is in the grip of a domestic violence crisis, and a little-known judicial loophole is stopping police from keeping perpetrators behind bars” and that the “sobering reality is that Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman could change the law today and help save the lives of innocent women. Yet despite pleas from the Queensland Police Union and senior domestic violence lawyers, the loophole remains.”

The print article reported “Here is how it works. Domestic violence offenders who strangle, assault or sexually assault partners are not being charged with the offence because they are not dealt with in the criminal court.” The online article reported: “The government claims that if a woman is strangled or assaulted that it does carry a criminal charge. However, if it’s committed in a domestic violence situation then it becomes an aggravating factor in sentencing.”

The article further reported: “So if you strangle a stranger on the street you’re charged with a criminal offence but if you strangle your ex-wife, it’s not deemed as a crime.” Following a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether it took reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice. The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that an absence of police prosecutions was not the result of a legal impediment to prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence.

The Council acknowledges the material provided to it by the publication in support of comments in the article concerning the prosecution of domestic violence perpetrators. The Council also acknowledges that the article is an opinion piece and such articles, by their nature, make an argument. In this context, the Council recognises that opinion writers who identify adverse outcomes or practices in law enforcement may not be across the detail of relevant underpinning legislation. Nonetheless, the Council does not consider there was anything in the material relied upon by the publication to substantiate the columnist’s assertion that a ‘judicial loophole’ is stopping police from prosecuting perpetrators of domestic violence for serious criminal acts.

The Council notes the legislation establishing the civil framework to protect victims of domestic violence specifically allows for concurrent criminal proceedings to occur. The Council notes that it would have been preferable to identify the problems as arising from matters of practice rather than from a legal loophole. Although the Council accepts the columnist raises an important issue, on balance, it considers the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Dr Christian Rowan / Brisbane Times, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald

The Press Council considered a complaint from Dr Christian Rowan, Queensland State Member for Moggill, and Shadow Minister for Education and The Arts about two articles published in the Brisbane Times, The Age, and The Sydney Morning Herald. The articles were headed “’Fake unions’: New associations ride jab mandate fears to get members” on 1 October 2021 and “Queensland LNP health spokeswoman is a member of ‘anti-COVID vax union’” on 2 October 2021 online.

The first article reported that a “set of ‘fake unions’ with links to current and former Liberal and National party figures are capitalising on anti-vaccination fears to recruit doctors, teachers and nurses and exploit dissent within the labour movement about mandatory vaccinations.” The article reported on the establishment of several professional associations, which were described as “fake unions”, including the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland (NPAQ). It reported that the secretary of the NPAQ, Aenghas Hopkinson- Pearson, was thanked by the “LNP education spokesman Christian Rowan in a speech last year for his work as the party’s state electorate council treasurer in Dr Rowan’s Queensland state seat of Moggill.”

The second article also reported that the NPAQ “secretary, Aenghas Hopkinson-Pearson, was thanked by Liberal National Party education spokesman Christian Rowan for his work on the executive of Dr Rowan’s state electorate committee.” The article further reported comments by Queensland Health Minister Yvette D’Ath saying Dr Rowan was “associated with an organisation that had expressed ‘anti-vax views’”. The article went on to say that Dr Rowan, a “specialist physician before entering Parliament”, was “fully vaccinated against the coronavirus and encouraged Queenslanders to do the same.”

The Council notes that the articles concern the reported links between current and former LNP members to organisations whose membership includes individuals who hold anti-vaccination views. In this context of exploring “fake union” links to the LNP, the Council considers that by including comments that the complainant had once thanked Mr Hopkinson-Pearson for his work on an LNP electoral committee, the articles misleadingly imply the complainant has an association with NPAQ. In relation to this, the Council notes the critical comments of the Queensland Health Minister in the second article saying that the complainant and one other Member of Parliament were associated with an organisation that held “anti-vax” views.

The Council accepts that both articles contained factual information but on the material before it, the complainant could not be said to have an association with NPAQ. Accordingly, General Principle 1 was breached. The Council also notes that in relation to the first article, the complainant was not provided with an opportunity to comment. The Council considered that the reference to the complainant was unnecessary and not reasonably fair in the context of articles exploring LNP links to “fake unions”. Accordingly, General Principle 3 was breached.

As to corrective or remedial action, the Council considers the articles are significantly misleading. While the Council acknowledges the second article included comments from the complainant confirming his support for Covid-19 vaccinations and condemning organisations that undermine vaccination efforts, the Council does not consider that this constituted adequate remedial action for the implication that the complainant has an association with NPAQ. Accordingly, General Principle 2 was breached in this respect. The Council notes the complainant was offered an opportunity to comment in relation to the second article. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 4. This finding is not inconsistent with the finding of a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Senator Antic / The Advertiser and Sunday Mail

The Press Council considered a complaint from Senator Alexander Antic about two articles published in The Advertiser and the Sunday Mail headed “SA Senator Alex Antic appeals to ‘god-fearing conservatives’ for Covid crusade” online on 21 January 2022 and “Flint farewell just another salvo in the culture wars” in print on 20 February 2022.

The first article, referring to the complainant, reported that “A government SA senator has told a disgraced Hillsong pastor’s live crowd that religious conservatives should resist Australian public health rules”. The second article, an opinion piece, referred to the complainant saying, “… when he’s not clogging up senate estimates with complaints about the branding of ice creams, is talking down his country to blow-hard American broadcasters, is another who might struggle to convince me he’s properly doing the job he was sent to Canberra to do.”

In relation to the first article, the Council notes the publication’s acceptance that the comments concerning the complainant telling a crowd that they should resist Australian public health rules were inaccurate. The Council also notes that on the material before it, the publication at the time did not take reasonable steps to confirm whether the complainant had in fact made such a comment. The Council considers that in stating that the complainant had told a crowd that they should resist Australian public health rules, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to be accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication breached General Principle 1.

The Council notes that once it became aware of the inaccuracy, the publication promptly amended the online article. Although the Council considers it is best practice to inform readers that an earlier version of an online article has been amended with an editor’s note, it considers that in the circumstances that the prompt amendment to the article was adequate. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 2 with respect to the first article.

In relation to the second article, the Council notes the publication’s acceptance that the comments concerning the complainant “clogging up” senate estimates with complaints about the branding of an ice cream were inaccurate. The Council notes that under General Principle 3, the publication was obliged, even in an opinion article, to take reasonable steps to ensure a writer’s expression of opinion is not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or an omission of key facts. The Council notes that in making such a statement, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure expressions of opinion were not based on significantly inaccurate factual material in breach of General Principle 3.

The Council recognises the publication’s offer of a clarification was not accepted by the complainant. However, the Council emphasises the obligation under General Principle 2 to provide a correction or adequate remedial action is unqualified and should have been made when the inaccuracy was identified. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication breached General Principle 2.

The Council considers the publication’s offer of a letter to the editor in relation to senate estimates and ice cream branding was an adequate response in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 4. This finding is not inconsistent with the finding of a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / The Courier Mail

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Courier Mail on 17 November 2021, headed “Only the parents can fix youth crime curse” in print and “Bill Leak’s controversial cartoon still sadly relevant today” online.

The article is an opinion piece in which the columnist stated that “It was revealed by Police Minister Mark Ryan in response to a parliamentary Question on Notice, figures provided by the Queensland Police Service showing that of the 3689 youths aged 10-17 years who spent between an hour to more than a week in the watch-house, 2635 or 71.42 per cent were Indigenous.”

The article went on to comment that the “inconvenient conclusion to be drawn is many Indigenous parents routinely abandon their responsibilities and do little to instil in their children respect for our laws and the property of others” and “People are quick to take to the streets and declare black lives matter while happily ignoring the cold, hard, irrefutable figures show far too many Indigenous parents do not think the futures of their children matter.” The columnist said: “They have a democratically guaranteed right to do these things, but while they march up and down the street waving flags, their children are stealing cars, robbing houses and being hauled off to the watch-house.”

The online article republished a Bill Leak cartoon from 2016 which showed a police officer holding an Indigenous boy and saying to the boy’s father: “You’ll have to sit down and talk to your son about personal responsibility.” “Yeah. Righto,” replies the father. “What’s his name then?”. The Council noted complaints had expressed concern that the article unfairly omits to refer to the well documented societal factors such as unemployment, poverty and poor education that are contributing factors in the incarceration rates of Indigenous youths and adults. The complaints also expressed concern that the inclusion of the cartoon is used to further perpetuate a racist stereotype that Indigenous parents, and in particular Indigenous fathers, are potentially drunkards and poor parents.

The Council is satisfied that reasonable steps were taken to present factual material concerning the incarceration rates of Indigenous youth accurately. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 1.

The Council notes that opinion articles by their nature make an argument and recognises the columnist’s comments concerning the role Indigenous parents may have on the incarceration rate of Indigenous youths were clearly presented as expressions of opinion and not statements of fact. Nonetheless, even in an opinion piece, the publication was obliged to ensure expressions of opinion are not based on an omission of key facts. In the absence of presenting a more balanced range of reasons behind the high incarceration rates of Indigenous youths, such as poverty, poor education and intergenerational trauma, and instead attributing the incarceration solely on an absence of parental guidance, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure expressions of opinion were not based on an omission of key facts. Accordingly, General Principle 3 was breached.

In attributing the high incarceration rates on Indigenous youths solely on an absence of parental guidance and extrapolating from the data that the parents of indigenous youths are not concerned with instilling in their children a respect for the law, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence and prejudice.

The Council also considers the level of offence and prejudice was compounded by the inclusion in the online article of the cartoon with no evidence of it representing the situation in any particular case let alone as a general portrayal of Indigenous fathers. Although the Council notes the very substantial public interest in reporting and commenting on the incarceration rates of Indigenous youths and the potential causes, the public interest did not justify the level of offence and prejudice, and General Principle 6 was breached in this respect.

The Council welcomes the publication’s offer to publish alternative views on the issues affecting the incarceration rates Indigenous youths.

Read the full adjudication here.

[JohnsonTV]

Interesting timing with the adjudication on The Courier-Mail opinion piece, given the recent controversy on the crime wave hitting Alice Springs.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / Daily Mail Australia

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by four articles published by Daily Mail Australia concerning gender affirming healthcare.

The articles were: “Young Woman Left Devastated after she transitioned to a man and had her breasts, uterus and ovaries removed sues psychiatrist for approving hormone therapy after meeting him ONCE ”, 24 August 2022; “Call for urgent inquiry into irreversible gender changes as woman sues psychiatrist after he approved her hormone therapy to transition into a man after a single appointment leaving her unable to get pregnant”, 25 August 2022; “Australians share their stories of regret after transitioning to a different gender amid calls for urgent inquiry into irreversible sex changes”, 26 August 2022 and “Australian TV host loses it at a doctor who’s helping teenagers change their genders: ‘Causing irreversible damage to children should be banned’”, 5 September 2022.

The first article reported on the content of a NSW Supreme Court Statement of Claim which said that “A woman who transitioned to a man is suing her psychiatrist for professional negligence after he approved her hormone therapy despite only seeing her for a single appointment”. The article reported that the woman “says her social phobia should have been treated before any hormone therapy and that she wasn’t given any information on how transition would affect her fertility” and that the “surgeries have left her suffering with ‘injuries and disabilities’.”

The second article, reporting on the same court documents concerning the same woman, included comments from former Liberal Party candidate Katherine Deves who said: “‘Those left harmed by these irreversible hormonal interventions and surgeries that cause a myriad of lifelong health problems were always likely to seek legal remedy and compensation. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Australian children and young people being subjected to these interventions.’” The article went on to include a comment from a prominent Australian actress and LGBTI advocate who was critical of Ms Deves’ views.

The third article reported the comments of an individual’s personal experience with gender transition who said he “… only identified as a transgender woman for a few months before he sat down with a psychiatrist, a requirement before commencing hormone therapy.” The article went on to say the individual: “… claims the professional failed to understand he was depressed, anxious and had a ‘f*****-up relationship with [his] sexuality’.” The article went on to quote the individual saying: “‘I think there is a massive population of people who actually don’t have gender dysphoria who are now either being pushed toward or themselves being drawn toward this gender affirmative care pathway.’” The article also reported on the same court documents repeating the same woman’s concerns as set out in the first and second articles.

The fourth article reported that “A social media post of a teenager happily showing off the scars of breast removal beside her smiling mother has sparked outrage from a conservative commentator”. It reported that the social media post “… is a picture of someone transitioning from female to male after a double mastectomy performed by Dr Gallagher, who is based in Miami, Florida and promotes herself as a ‘leader in the field of gender affirmation surgery’.” The article went onto report that the conservative commentator “…has previously criticised the practice of giving children trans surgery, including praising Florida Republican politician Randy Fine for moving to ban providing ‘gender assignment’ drugs or surgery to minors” and “‘Good. Causing irreversible damage to children should be banned’”. The article also included comments from an individual who is quoted as saying “It’s transphobic to say it but after I’ve been through the system, I 100 percent feel like I was part of some cruel medical and social experiment - except nobody checked in on me.” The article also included comments from those critical of the views expressed by the conservative commentator.

In response to complaints received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the articles complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice which require publications to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance. The Council noted that the complaints raised concerns in regard to the absence of balancing comments in a series of news articles published over a period of time from individuals or organisations who are supportive gender affirming healthcare.

In relation to the article published on 24 August 2022, the Council acknowledges that the article is based on court documents and recognises the publication’s attempts to contact the individuals involved in the proceedings. In relation the article published on 5 September 2022, the Council notes that the article is based on social media commentary, and that it includes comments, both positive and negative, on the views expressed in a tweet by the conservative commentator. The Council also notes the inclusion of comments concerning gender affirming health taken from the doctor’s website who was the subject of the tweet. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication did not breach General Principle 3 in relation to these two articles.

In relation to the articles published on 25 and 26 August 2022, the Council notes an absence of comments from individuals or organisations that offer a different perspective than those put forward by Katherine Deves in particular on gender affirming healthcare and the experience of the individual referred to in the court documents. Although the Council recognises the subsequent amendment to the articles to include a position statement from AusPath, this in itself is not sufficient to address the absence of balance. Accordingly, in relation to these two articles, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.

The Council recognises that it has previously stated that reporting on a subject does not always require complete, or almost complete balance. In some instances, the requisite balance might be achieved through the previous or subsequent publication of articles that put forward alternative views on a subject. However, the Council considers that when reporting on matters of important social debate such as gender affirming healthcare, publications should be especially mindful of informing its readers that there are a range of perspectives on matters of strong public interest. In this instance, the Council notes that the four articles approached the issue of gender affirming healthcare from a particular perspective.

The Council also notes that no additional articles were provided by the publication that offered an alternative perspective on the issue. Although the Council recognises that the subsequent amendment to two articles achieved some balance, it considers that some attempt should have been made at the time to publish a range of views on the issue either in the individual articles or through the prior or subsequent publication of additional articles. In considering the series of articles, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure its reporting on the issue of gender affirming healthcare was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / Herald Sun

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Herald Sun online on 19 November 2022, headed “Daniel Andrews’ chief of staff met with election fixer”.

The article reported that “Daniel Andrews’ chief of staff has had direct contact with the election fixer who was caught boasting about rorting Victoria’s elections”. It reported that "Glenn Druery was exposed in a bombshell video, revealed by the Herald Sun on Thursday, boasting how he would ‘control’ who wins several key upper house seats in next week’s election – with ‘his’ MPs likely to share the balance of power.” It reported that “Mr Druery was also caught on film saying the ALP was happy not to reform the system he is rorting because he delivers the party a ‘crossbench they can work with’ in government.” The article went on to state that “Amid furore over the damning revelations, Mr Andrews on Thursday said: ‘I don’t believe I have ever met him, spoken to him, I don’t know him’. But the Herald Sun can reveal Mr Druery has had direct contact with Mr Andrews’ chief of staff, Lissie Ratcliff, during this term of government, and met with his office.”

In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and to ensure that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3).

The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the headline and article misleadingly and unfairly imply that Daniel Andrew’s chief of staff met with the “election fixer” in the context of the then upcoming Victorian election.

The Council recognises that the ability of headlines to accurately reflect the tenor of an article may vary in the circumstances and that an article’s initial paragraphs often establishes a more accurate position. The Council also recognises that what constitutes reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading may also vary in the circumstances. However, the Council considers that publications need to take great care in order to satisfy the reasonable steps standard in the context of reporting on an election, which is a subject of significant public interest. In this instance, the Council considers that the clear implication of the headline is that the “election fixer” met with Daniel Andrew’s chief of staff in the context of the then upcoming Victorian election.

The Council also considers that given the article’s repeated references to the “election fixer” in the initial paragraphs followed by the revelation of the meeting with Mr Druery, the subsequent inclusion of Daniel Andrew’s denial of having met Mr Druery and his spokesman’s statement regarding the nature of Mr Druery’s meeting with the chief of staff, were insufficient to remedy this misconception. The Council considers that by referring to the “election fixer” in the headline and that the “election fixer” met with the chief of staff in the article, which was published immediately before an upcoming election, the publication failed to take steps to ensure factual material is not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.

The Council also considers, that by making repeated and prominent references to the “election fixer”, the article unfairly implied that Daniel Andrew’s office was involved in election fixing in the context of the then upcoming election. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness in breach of General Principle 3.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / The Daily Telegraph

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a cartoon in The Daily Telegraph in print on 16 November 2022 captioned “NOT THE QUESTION YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM AN ISIS BRIDE…”.

The cartoon depicts a Muslim woman dressed entirely in black wearing a full veil or niqab and only showing her eyes. The woman is depicted asking a man, who is standing behind a ticket box that has the words “ALP FUND RAISER TICKETS” on the front of it, “HOW MUCH PER HEAD?”.

In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice which require the publication to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the cartoon was offensive to Muslims.

The Council recognises that cartoons are expressions of opinion that often use exaggeration and absurdity to make a point on serious issues. For this reason, the Council has consistently given significant latitude to cartoons when considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice. However, the Council considers that the significant public interest in allowing freedom of expression must be weighed against the equally significant public interest in not promoting prejudice.

The Council also considers that a stated absence of intention by publication to cause offense, distress, or prejudice to a particular group or individual is not relevant to the consideration of whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice. The Council notes that particularly in the context of race, ethnicity and religion, that publications should exercise great care to avoid going beyond exaggeration and absurdity by using graphical depictions that may instead reinforce offensive and prejudicial stereotypes.

In relation to this, the Council notes the cartoon’s depiction of the ‘ISIS bride’ dressed in black wearing a full veil or niqab has the potential to associate all Muslim women who wear such clothing with Islamic terrorism.

However, the Council concludes that the cartoon’s specific reference to ISIS brides in the caption, along with the comments made in a front page news report and accompanying editorial in the same edition of the cartoon, that some western suburb mayors had expressed concern with the ALP’s decision to repatriate ISIS brides into their communities, was sufficient to demonstrate that the publication took reasonable steps to comply with General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / The Australian

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Daily Telegraph online on 11 March 2020 headed “Rian Ross Toyer in court accused of killing Mhelody Polan Bruno”.

The article reported “A Wagga man accused of choking a transgender woman to death one week before she was reportedly set to fly home has fronted court.” The article went on to report that “Emergency services were called to a Tarcutta Street unit where they found the 25-year-old transgender woman from the Philippines unresponsive.” Mr Toyer was sentenced in 2021.

In response to a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice without sufficient public interest justification (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint expressed concern that the prominent and repeated references to the victim’s transgender status were unfair and not justified by the public interest as the article established no relevance between the victim’s transgender status and the alleged crime.

The Council notes that the victim’s transgender status was only referred to in the sentencing judgment, which was published approximately 12 months after the article was published, for the purpose of recording the victim’s correct pronoun. The Council notes that there was no evidence provided that stated or implied that, during the hearing of the matter, the victim’s transgender status was raised as a contributing factor to her manslaughter. The Council has repeatedly stated over a long period that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, nationality, country of origin, marital status, disability, illness, or age.

The Council has also stated that, beyond the strict requirements of the law, publications have a further responsibility to ensure compliance with the Standards of Practice, which may extend to moderating or not reporting particular information that has been said in open court. Given the victim’s transgender status was not a contributing factor to her manslaughter, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness in the absence of a public interest justification. While the Council has previously noted that there is a public interest in reporting on the serious issue of violence against transgender people, it notes that the facts of this matter did not give rise to such a public interest. Accordingly, the Council concludes General Principle 3 was breached.

Given the victim’s transgender status was not raised in Court proceedings at the time as being a contributing factor to her manslaughter, the Council considers the repeated references to that status could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic motivated her accused to take her life and was therefore either a cause of, or a factor in, her death. This could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. The Council considers that in prominently identifying the woman as transgender in the sub-headline the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was no sufficient public interest justifying it doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Mayor Teresa Harding / Ipswich Tribune

The Press Council considered a complaint from Mayor Teresa Harding concerning an article published in the Ipswich Tribune headed “OIA won’t investigate Harding” in print and online on 10 August 2022.

The article reported: “THE Office of the Independent Assessor will not investigate complaints of misconduct against Ipswich Mayor Teresa Harding despite public outrage over her involvement in altering an officer’s report before it went to council for a vote. Councillors Nicole Jonic and Jacob Madsen have publicly criticised Cr Harding over the altered report on the re-naming of assets named after the Pisasale family, referring to the actions as ‘political interference’ and ‘questionable conduct’”.

The article went on to report that “The Ipswich Tribune has since revealed a version of the report with tracked changes from Cr Harding, initialled ‘TH’, rewriting the officer’s recommendations to the council and deleting references to community feedback asking council to leave the names as they were.” It reported that “The manager resigned from her position at council after CEO Sonia Cooper directed her to hand the Mayor’s version of the report to council”.

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach (General Principles 2 and 4).

The Council accepts that on the information before it, the OIA investigated and then dismissed several complaints regarding the complainant’s conduct on the basis that the conduct did not raise a reasonable suspicion of inappropriate conduct or misconduct. The Council accepts the premise that the OIA’s decision to dismiss the complaints amounts to the complainant being cleared of wrongdoing.

The Council therefore considers that the article’s statement that the OIA “will not investigate complaints of misconduct against Ipswich Mayor Teresa Harding”, and the references to the ‘alteration of the report’ and the inclusion of quotes referring to the complainant’s conduct as “political interference” and “questionable conduct”, unfairly and misleadingly suggest the complainant was not investigated by the OIA and had acted inappropriately. The Council considers that on the information before it, such assertions are without factual basis. Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with General Principles 1 and 3.

In the absence of independently verifiable information before it, the Council makes no finding concerning the article’s assertion that an officer resigned due to the complainant’s comments on the report.
Given the article’s unfair and misleading comments concerning the alteration of a report, and the complainant’s attempts to draw this to the publication’s attention, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other remedial action in breach of General Principle 2.

The Council notes the publication’s offer of a letter to the editor in relation to the complainant’s concerns. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 4. This finding is not inconsistent with the finding of a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / NT News and Cairns Post

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in the NT News and the Cairns Post on 3 September 2022, headed “Woke world is wobbling” in print.

The article is an opinion piece in which the columnist stated that “In Britain, the gender fluidity clinic Tavistock was recently closed after an inquiry concluded allowing often confused and immature children to transition to another gender put them ‘at considerable risk’”.

The columnist said that “Over the past 10 years the Safe Schools program has told students Australian society is guilty of homophobia, transphobia and heteronormativity and the way to achieve sexual freedom is to embrace what Roz Ward describes as a world where ‘bodies can blossom in extraordinary, new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today’”. The article went on to comment that “Even worse, notwithstanding events surrounding Tavistock, in Victoria Chairman Dan has legislated to stop parents, priests and health professionals from counselling young people about the dangers and harmful consequences of taking puberty blockers.”

The Council recognises that the article is clearly identified as an opinion piece and given the significant public interest of allowing freedom of expression, the Council takes the view that such articles are entitled to express robust and, at times, provocative views. Nonetheless, even in an opinion piece, the obligation is to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading and expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

In regard to the comment that the Tavistock clinic was “closed after an inquiry concluded allowing often confused and immature children to transition to another gender put them ‘at considerable risk’”, the Council does not consider that there was anything in the material relied upon by the publication that substantiated this statement.

The Council notes that the BBC article referred to by the publication states, referring to the independent review led by Dr Hilary Cass, “She said that the current model of care was leaving young people “at considerable risk” of poor mental health and distress, and having one clinic was “not a safe or viable long-term option”.” The Cass Review, the subject of the BBC article, refers to the risk associated with the current model of care, “a single specialist provider model is not a safe or viable long-term option in view of concerns about lack of peer review and the ability to respond to the increasing demand”. The Cass Review, and the BBC article in turn, refer to the model of care at the Tavistock clinc as creating the risk, not the act of gender transition itself.

In regard to the columnist’s comments concerning Safe Schools, the Council also does not accept that there was anything in material relied upon by the publication, to assert that students are being told that Australian society is guilty of homophobia, transphobia and heteronormativity. The Council does not accept that explanatory words contained in a glossary of terms, nor the public comments of co-designer of Safe Schools referred to by the publication, support the columnist’s comments in relation to this statement.

In regard to the columnist’s comment that Victorian legislation prevents “parents, priests and health professionals from counselling young people about the dangers and harmful consequences of taking puberty blockers”, the Council notes that the publication did not refer to specific aspects of the legislation which contained such a prohibition and does not consider that there was anything in the material relied upon by the publication to substantiate this statement.

Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the factual material in the article is accurate and not misleading, and that the columnist’s expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts in breach of General Principles 1 and 3.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Louise Milligan / The Australian

The Press Council considered a complaint from Louise Milligan concerning an article published in The Australian headed “Greatest enemy of truth is those who conspire to lie” in print and online on 8 June 2021.

The article, an editorial, commented that “Many at the ABC express their displeasure at being held to account by The Australian. Forget that their own Media Watch has a leery obsession with News Corporation, some less thoughtful ABC journalists, and their flacks, one-time reporters who seem to have forgotten where they came from, decry any form of scrutiny”.

It said “Whether they like it or not, the ABC is one of the most powerful institutions in Australia. Not only does the national broadcaster pocket $1bn a year from our pay packets to produce great local radio, at times intoxicating drama and clever, original television, but much of that federal money is spent on journalism. In fact, the ABC, a wholly taxpayer-funded institution, is the biggest media outlet in Australia. The No.1 player in digital text and broadcast news, and awash on the airwaves of radio and television. The ABC is a behemoth. It is both the game and the gamekeeper.”

The editorial also said that “Many senior people at The Australian know well the work, the habits and the hubris of Sally Neighbour and Louise Milligan”. It went on to say “To be good you often need to be brash, and brave. But to be really good, you need to be beyond reproach. Your loyalty to the truth must be without question. Fairness and balance is your currency. It has to be. Think of the opposite qualities to answer why. The subjects of good journalism, of important journalism, lie and dissemble. Good journalists do not. They rely on the truth. They yearn for it. But they understand the limits. In many respects the natural enemy of a journalist, aside from a public relations hack, or a political flack, is the defamation lawyer. The most dangerous enemy of the journalist is bad, lazy, deceitful journalism.”

The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable to this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If material refers adversely to a person a fair opportunity is to be given for a subsequent reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3 (General Principle 4). Publications must also take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).

The Council recognises an editorial is the voice of a newspaper and for this reason, it is given significant latitude in expressing its views. Nonetheless, the Council notes that even in an editorial, a publication remains obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. In relation to this, the Council notes the statement “Many senior people at The Australian know well the work, the habits and the hubris of … Louise Milligan” was presented as a statement of fact and not merely an expression of opinion.

Although the Council notes the publication’s comments that the editorial was not directed at the complainant, it considers that it is an unavoidable conclusion that she is associated with “bad, lazy, deceitful journalism” and that she ‘lies’ and ‘dissembles’ on the basis that she is specifically named in the article; that she is an ABC journalist; that she was once employed at The Australian and the critical comments concerning her alleged work, habits and hubris. For this reason, the Council considers the editorial, misleadingly and unfairly infers that such undesirable traits are associated with the complainant and her journalism. The Council notes that on the information before it, such an inference is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principles 1 and 3.

The Council notes that the complainant did not seek a right of reply. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 4.

The Council recognises the significant public interest in allowing an editorial to express robust views on matters of important public interest. However, the Council considers that naming the complainant, an ABC journalist in an editorial that commented on the ABC and what it considers are the attributes of poor journalism, was likely to cause substantial offence and distress without a sufficient public interest justification. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was breached.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Senator Gerard Rennick / The Australian

The Press Council considered a complaint from Senator Gerard Rennick concerning an article published by The Australian online on 11 August 2022, headed “Anti-vax Liberal senator Gerard Rennick refused briefings from Greg Hunt”.

The article reported that “Liberal senator Gerard Rennick, who has been criticised for spreading misinformation and Covid-19 conspiracy theories, turned down multiple invitations for individual briefings from former health minister Greg Hunt.” It said “Senator Rennick was offered several one-on-one sessions with Mr Hunt, as well as Health Department Deputy Secretary and Therapeutic Goods Administration boss Adjunct Professor John Skerritt, since the start of the pandemic. However, these standing invitations were never taken up.”

The article went on to report that “It’s understood that the TGA has responded to a large number of questions about vaccine safety from Senator Rennick in budget estimates, Covid committee hearings and personal correspondence.”

The complainant said that it is false and misleading to say that he declined meetings with health officials. The complainant said that no meetings were ever offered to him, and that he never declined any meetings or briefings with the then Health Minister or health officials. The complainant said that he did meet with the then Minister of Health or his staff and had also had two telephone conversations with the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The complainant also said that prior to the article’s publication, he was not contacted for comment and, despite informing the publication after publication that he never declined meetings, no amendment was made to correct the article at the time.

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3).

They also require publications to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2) and provide an opportunity for a response to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4).

The Council accepts that based on the information before it, the complainant was offered briefings by a range of senior officers from the Department of Health, including the head of the TGA. The Council also notes the publication’s reference to Question on Notice, that was provided after publication of the article, which confirms that the complainant was offered briefings. However, while the Council accepts that such offers were made, there is no information before it to suggest that the complainant actively ‘refused’ or ‘turned down’ these offers. The Council notes that ‘refusing’ or ‘turning down’ an offer would require a specific response to an offer, which the Council notes is absent from the material before it. Accordingly, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to be accurate and not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.

The Council notes that soon after the article was published, the publication offered to amend the article to include the complainant’s denial that he refused offers of briefings. The Council notes however, that the article was not amended until sometime after publication and only after a complaint was lodged with the Press Council. Given the reference to the complainant refusing health department briefings is significantly inaccurate and misleading and remained uncorrected for some time, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other remedial action. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 2.

The Council recognises the publication’s offer to include his denial was not accepted by the complainant, and also that the publication subsequently amended the online article. However, the Council emphasises the obligation under General Principle 2 to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action is unqualified, and should have been made when the inaccuracy was identified.

The Council considers that given the article specifically concerned the complainant, it was incumbent on the publication to seek comment from the complainant prior to publication regarding the offers of meetings. The Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present the material with the fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.

The Council considers the publication’s prompt offer to amend the article and include his comments refuting the assertion that he was offered meetings, was an adequate response in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 4. This finding is not inconsistent with the finding of a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Curtis Pitt / The Courier-Mail

The Press Council considered a complaint from Curtis Pitt, Speaker of the Queensland Parliament concerning an article published by the Courier Mail, headed “Activists in court is a terrible look” in print and online on 1 February 2023.

The article, an editorial, commented that “In May 1992, the Goss cabinet approved legislation to give Queenslanders the formal right to public protest. The accompanying announcement said the change was a critical part of the Fitzgerald process. Labor premier Wayne Goss declared: ‘Governments who try to restrict the right of the people to freedom of expressions are governments scared of scrutiny. This government is not.’” It went on to say that “In November 2022, Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk reinterpreted that freedom, telling parliament: ‘People have the right to protest silently in public.’ She followed that extraordinary statement by encouraging her Speaker Curtis Pitt to criminally prosecute a group of Extinction Rebellion protesters – most aged over 50 and a number of them grandmothers – who had interrupted proceedings of parliament for three minutes.”

The editorial said that “Sending a clear message that this protest was the wrong thing to do is therefore appropriate. But the response should be proportionate. Nobody was hurt. There was no property damaged. And the entire disruption lasted for a total of three minutes. Charging the protesters with the criminal offence of disturbing the legislature is a punishment that clearly does not fit the crime. Considering our state’s political history, that this was done at the behest of a Labor Premier is troubling.”

The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2) and provide an opportunity for a response to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4).

The Council recognises the public interest in allowing editorials to express robust views on matters of significant public importance, as in this case. Nonetheless, the Council has consistently stated that even in opinion articles, such as an editorial, a publication remains obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Although the Council does not consider the editorial suggests the complainant charged the protestors, the comment that the referral of the protesters to police was done at the “behest” of the Premier was presented as a statement of fact and inaccurately and unfairly suggests the complainant acted on the Premier’s instructions. The Council notes that the Speaker is required to discharge his duties with impartiality. The Council considers that there is an absence of information to suggest that the Speaker did not act independently, and thus failed to act in accordance with his duty of impartiality, when referring the protesters to the police. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principles 1 and 3.

As to General Principles 2 and 4, the Council notes the absence of a request for correction or other remedial action by the complainant. Accordingly, the Council finds no beach of General Principles 2 and 4.

Read the full adjudication here.

[crankymedia]

What a disgrace, APC sides with a negligent state government, desperate to hold onto power any way they can, including trying to get a win via the APC.

[TV.Cynic]

Australian Press Council 2023 Press Freedom Award is now open for nominations

The Australian Press Council (APC) is calling for nominations for its Press Freedom Award (formerly the Press Freedom Medal) for an individual, or individuals, who have demonstrated extraordinary commitment or service to the cause of press freedom.

Nominees can be journalists, editors, or others such as members of the legal profession, educators, or whistle-blowers whose work has supported press freedom or cast light upon important issues in Australian society. Nominations may be made by members of the public, any member of the Council and its Secretariat, or from any publication that is a member of the Press Council.

“Advocating for freedom of the press is an important responsibility of the Press Council,” said APC Chair Neville Stevens. “The Press Freedom Award honours those courageous individuals who pursue this freedom, often at great personal risk.”

Nominations for the 2023 Press Freedom Award open today, Thursday 12 October 2023 and should be submitted by Wednesday 1 November 2023, together with reasons why the individual(s) should be considered for the award. They can be supplied as Word documents, PDFs, or within the body of an email. Nominations should be no longer than 250 words.

Please email nominations to media@presscouncil.org.au.

[TV.Cynic]

Complainant / The Australian

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Australian online on 28 March 2023, headed "Trans female kills 3 children, 3 staff at Nashville Covenant School” which linked to a homepage headline “Trans woman kills 3 children, 3 staff at US school”.

The article reported that “The attack on a Nashville primary school that left three children and three staff members dead was meticulously planned by the female suspect, according to local police. The transgender attacker, identified by police as Audrey Hale, 28, left a manifesto and a map in her home before heading to the private Covenant School to carry out the mass shooting”.

The article reported that “Police chief Don Drake told reporters that police searched the home of the suspect, who was killed by police at the school, and found evidence of a targeted attack.” It also included an embedded video from a television interview recording the Police Chief saying, “she does identify as transgender”.

In response to a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). In relation to this the complaint expressed concern that the prominent and repeated references to the accused’s transgender status, were unfair and were not justified by the public interest as the transgender status of Hale is not reported to have been a contributing factor in the shooting.

The Council recognises that in a breaking news report, such as this, early reports of an event may differ significantly from what is reported in a later version. In this context, the Council notes the subsequent updates to the article placed significantly less prominence on Hale’s transgender status than was initially the case. Nonetheless, the Council does not consider that the initial prominent and repeated references to Hale’s transgender status were warranted.

The Council notes that apart from the Police Chief confirming Hale was transgender and noting that the police would consider whether this was a contributing factor, there was no further information to justify the prominent and repeated references. The Council considers that in the absence of a clearer link between the crime and Hale’s transgender status, particularly in a breaking news story, such references were unfair. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.

The Council’s long-standing position is that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age. Although the Council recognises that the Police Chief made a reference to Hale’s transgender status, it does not consider that this alone was sufficient to justify such prominent and repeated references to this characteristic.

The Council considers the prominence given to the accused’s transgender status, could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic was either a cause of, or a significant factor in, the mass shooting, and could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. The Council considers that in the absence of a clearer link between Hale’s transgender status and the mass shooting, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was insufficient public interest justifying it doing so.

Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.

Read the full adjudication here.

[TV.Cynic]

Australian Press Council welcomes Attorney-General’s Review of Secrecy Provisions - Final Report

The Australian Press Council (APC) welcomes the release of the Government’s final report on the review of Commonwealth Secrecy Provisions and the announcement that the Government will introduce improved press freedom protections.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and the Government are to be congratulated for the work that has gone into this review and their acknowledgment of the importance of a strong and independent media to our democracy and holding governments to account.

The APC looks forward to working with the Government to achieve the legislative changes necessary to implement these improved press freedom protections.

[crankymedia]

APC gone woke. Most of the population would be comfortable with the vocabulary used.